The research carried out an anthropological analysis of the intricacies of the teaching of anthropology at graduate level in courses outside the realm of the Social Sciences. With this in mind, we conducted an ethnographical research with teachers in that discipline at private Higher Education institutions (IESs) in Curitiba, Parana. Even if the object of our study was the teaching of anthropology, this is not a thesis on education, but leans toward anthropology of education. In addition to participant observation of the classes, interviews were applied to teachers, course coordinators, to many of their students, and also to representatives of the Teaching Commission (CE) of the Brazilian Anthropological Association (ABA). The ethnographic data prompted reflections on the concepts of subject, teaching and learning that operate in the training of teachers in higher education in general and of anthropologists, in particular, in respect to their teaching, identifying their strategies in the transmission of anthropological knowledge. These strategies suggest that teachers have developed their own teaching methods through a process of bricolage, to address the lack of teacher training, since the vast majority realized that their training in the ost-Graduate Studies Programs in Anthropology (PPGAs), whose emphasis is on research, has not contributed to develop their teaching skills. However, if it is assumed that every teacher developed his own method outside the academia, it is also reasonable to think that the academy contributed to the method by forming what we call a professorial habitus. This habitus indicates that natives make a separation between the content taught and the methods to be used, emphasizing the former over the latter, since the major concern of teachers is on the "what# to teach, while we suggest in this research that emphasis on the #how# to teach is what makes an important difference. The difference is not on the type of class taught ("expositive" or not), nor on the sources (authors of the #classics# or their "commentators"), but on the appropriation of this knowledge in a meaningful way, and on the teachers´ ability to relate their students´ background knowledge and experiences to key anthropological concepts discussed. In this sense, "experience" has become the main issue in this research. This led us to a dialogue with other areas of knowledge, returning to Kantian assumptions, which are hegemonic, but not absolute, as was counterpointed by Goethe, who was contrary to the a priori limits to knowledge as imposed by Kant. From this analysis, the research brings suggestions for training and teaching in PPGAs, discusses the reasons for the low participation of anthropology teachers from private Higher Education Institutions in scientific events organized by ABA, correlating their absence in such events to the fact that they emphasize research while private institutions place emphasis on teaching.